The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. _HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 19. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual time. SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY. On the motion of Captain ALSAGAR this Bill was read a third time and passed. HUNGERFORD AND LAMBETH SUSPEN- SIGN BRIDGE. On the motion of Mr. HAWES this Bill was read a third time and passed. MEDWAY_ NAVIGATION. Mr. HODGES moved the further consideration of the Report of the Committee on this Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL, after presenting a petition against the Bill, said he was sorry to be obliged to trouble the House with a few observations in opposition to this Bill. The circumstances attending this Bill were very unusual in Parliamentary proceedings, and such as had never before come within his knowledge. The Bill was not brought in by the Proprietors of the Medway Navigation, but by adverse and hostile parties ; but who they were it was impossible for him to say, at least he did not know them. There were clauses in this Bill, which actually imposed on the Company the expense of the Par liamentary proceedings in obtaining the present Bill, with which they had nothing to do, and in which they did not wish to be concerned. When the Bill was in Committee every facility was given by the Proprietors of the Navigation for the thorough in vestigation of this matter. All their books and documents were laid before the Committee in the most open manner: 'There were no grounds whatever that could be stated upon, which the House could justify itself in passing this measure.—(Hear.) With respect to the statement that this Company were dealers in timber, it amount ed to no more than this—they required timber to re pair their wharfs and barges, and sold the remainder.. Since his experience in Parliament he had never seen so gross an invasion of the rights of property as was.contem plated by the present Bill. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the Report be further considered that day three months. i_ Sir J. GRAHAM seconded the amendment. Mr. HODGES thought the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet was rather unusual. He had for many years heard great complaints of the manner in which the Com pany acted. Great stress had been laid on the interference of private property by the Bill ; he contended that the Bill, in stead of depreciating would enhance the value of private pro perty. The Company had been trading in coal and timber,which they had no right to do, because they diverted their tolls, by doing that, into a source which they were not allowed by the Act of Parliament. If the Company were re stricted from trading at all, was it to be supposed that the competition of private parties would not be able to supply parties with this article at as cheap a rate as the Company 'could do ? It was quite clear to any body reading the evidence that the accounts of the Company were in great confusion, and that the great body of the share holders had not had justice done them. If the Company allowed the public to be supplied by competition, they would be supplied as cheaply as at present, and the Company would derive an increase of tolls from the increase of the trade. He admitted that the term mono poly might be applied to this Company more strictly some years ago, than at present. He hoped the House would pass this Bill, which would give full effect to all the im provements suggested by this Company, to the great bene fit of the public, notwithstanding the opposition of private parties. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were, For the motion For the amendment Majority 55 -14 Tile Bill is consequently lost. Sir R. DONKIN presented a petition from Berwick upon-Tweed, complaining of the inconvenience to which they were subjected, from the distance at which the sessions and assizes wire held, and praying that they might be in corporated under the prolision3 of the Alunicpal Reform 1111 with the Northern Division of Durham. TIIE BALLOT. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from 200 inhabitants of Leamington in Warwickshire, in favour of the Ballot ; also a p,it'tion from a congregation of Dissenters in the metropolis, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSON presented a petition from Kirkcudbright, praying for an alteration in the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition frcm Pollock shawes, in Renfrou'Aire, prating that the rights of bur gesses should be protected, and for the introduction of vote by ballot. Mr. RUTH VE N presented a petition from the parish of St. James's, in the city of Dublin, complaining of the con duct of the House of Lords, in refusing the same measure of Corporate Reform to Ireland now enjoyed by England, and praying this House to take immediate steps for a reform of the House of Lords, signed by 1,270 householders of that parish. In the sentiments of the petition he most cor dially and entirely agreed. Colonel THOMPSON had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, which he did with pleasure, in order to shew that at least one English Member deeply sympathized with Ireland. Mr. WILKS presented a petition from two individuals named Humphries, who were Clerks of Dispensations and Faculties in the Court of Chancery, praying for com pensation, on the ground that their emoluments would be much curtailed by one of the Balls now before Parliament for the Commutation of Tithes. Mr. H urr presented a petition from the merchants and shipowners of Hull in favour of the Bill for the better regu lation of the Trinity House in Hull ; also one to the same effect from the Guardians of Hull ; and one from Hull in favour of the Charities' Trustees Bill. Lord F. EGERTON presented a petition from several dignitaries of the Church, complaining of that part of the Church Discipline Bill which empowered the Bishop to summon a jury of nine clergymen for the trial of clerical offences ; and one froin tl.e same parties, complaining of the Fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical' Commissioners, especially of that part of it which at once transferred the patronage, at present in the hands of the Deans and Chapters, from them to the Bishops. The peti tioners also stated, that, upon the recommendation of the Commissioners, no person had been presented who was related to the Bishops or the Archbishops ; they stated, further, that they were entitled to the whole be nefit of those recommendations, by which they were affected ; supposing the House should still look favourably upon the recommendation of the Commissioners with respect to the transfer of patronage, still they contended they were entitled to it in the nature of vested rights. The petition ers also stated that they viewed with alarm the 52d clause of the fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which recommended that power he given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of dividing the livings during the life of the present incumbent, and without the consent of the patron of the living, and they prayed that the evils of which they complained might be corrected. He could assure the House that the signatures to this 'petition, though not numerous, were highly distinguished and respectable. PATENTS. Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from John Henry Marsh, stating, that from a period so long back as 1793, he had made great improvements in the construction of ships and vessels ; but that he bad been prevented from promulgating them to the extent he was inclined to do, through poverty, and the want of ability to meet the ex penses of a patent. He prayed that the patent rate might be so reduced, so as to put it in the power of any inventor to obtain a patent at a small expense. CHURCH RATES. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Coventry, praying for the abolition of church rates and vicar's rates. The petition was signed by some of the most respectable and influential persons in the city of Coventry. As a mem ber of the Church of England, he concurred in the prayer of the petition ; an d expresse d a h ope t h at G overnment wouldintroduce some measure to remedy this grievance. STANNERIES COURT BILL. Mr. FRESHFIELD presented a petition from Penryn against the Stanneries Coult.Bill. LAW OF LIBEL. Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition from an in dividual named John Milligan, of Richmond, stat ing that the petitioner had been found guilty of libel at the Kingston assizes, and a penalty of 501. in flicted upon him which would incarcerate him for life, and praying for an alteration _in the law of libel. CHARITY TRUSTS. Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Freemen of Coventry, with 3,198 signatures appended to it, against certain provisions in the Bill for the appointment of Cha ritable Trustees. SALE OF BEER. Mr. POULTER presented a petition from the retailers of beer at Reading, praying for an alteration of the present law affecting the sale of beer. AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE. Mr. ROBINSON said, that having been induced to postpone a motion relating to foreign corn, from being in formed that the Agricultural Committee had the subject under their consideration, he now wished to know whether that Committee, after their protracted sitting, were about to make any report ? No answer having been returned, The HON. MEMBER said, that if it was not convenient for Hon. Gentlemen to answer the question, he would give notice that he would put the question to-morrow. Mr. SANFORD, as one of the Agricultural Committee, was sorry to inform the Hon. Member for Worcester that it was not the intention of that Committee to make any "other Report than to lay the evidence before the House. The Government had most certainly nothing to do with the Report. An independent Me m b er h a d been put in the chair, and he had on proposing the report stated most distinctly that the report had been drawn up by himself, and that it was entirely his own. - 74:- . 474 NOTARIES' PUBLIC BILL. Dr. NICHOLL begged to,inquire whether the lion. Member opposite intended to proceed with the Notaries' Public Bill at this late period of the Session ? Mr. C. BULLER said he was afraid the Bill was not so perfect as it might be made. He was afraid there would not, now be time to perfect it properly, and he was therefore reluctantly obliged to postpone it till next Session. On the motion of the Hon. Member, the Bill was ordered to be committed that day three months, POOR LAW BILL. Mr. WALTER was anxious to know whether the Go vernment intended to go on with the Poor Law Amend ment Bill this session. He had been entrusted with a very important petition on the subject, and he hoped to be afforded an opportunity of presenting it before the second reading of the Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said an opportunity would most certainly be afforded the Hon. Member of presenting his petition before the second read ing of the Bill, which the Government intended to go on with. Mr. WARBURTON said he was anxious to have a time fixed for resuming the adjourned debate on the impor tant petition he had presented, relative to the Troutbeck case. He would be contented with any evening or morning which would meet with the convenience of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not wish to put anything in the way of the Hon. Member, but the public business must be proceeded with. Mr. WAKLEY hoped, with reference to the ques tion of the Honourable Member for Berkshire, that some early day would be appointed for the 2nd reading of the Bill, as it was an exceedingiy important measure ; one almost as important as the Bill of 1833. He trusted how ever, that the Bill would not be read a second time that day, as it was so short a period since it had been in troduced. He had intended to put a question to the Secretary at War with reference to allowing soldiers to wear side arms. In doing so, he should have stated a circumstances which he had witnessed between two soldiers on his return from the House last night ; but as the Right Hon. Gentle man was not in his place; he should postpone his question. TROUTBECK CASE. Mr. WA.RBURTON gave notice that on Friday he should move that the House should sit on Monday at twelve o'clock, in order to proceed with the debate on this case. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Mr. V. SMITH moved the further consideration of the Report on the Charitable Trusts Bill. The framer of the Bill had endeavoured to meet every objection that had been urged upon the subject ; Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords bad objected to many of the clauses of the Bill, because they were similar in their nature to one then on the table of the House, introduced by Lord Brougham ; that Bill, however, had not been proceeded with, and the present embodied almost all its important provisions. The great principles of this Bill was certainly the elective principle—but it was not the same in this Bill as that which had been adopted by this House in the regulation of political bodies. The distinction was manifest, but the principle was not a new one, as it had been adopted in the choice of officers in corporate towns, and the consequence was that those elections had proceeded much more quietly than any of the other elections. The principle was that each burgess should have the right of voting but for one half the number of trus tees to be elected. It was obvious that this was to provide against cases where parties were evenly divided. He was very unwilling to introduce the word " party " at all, or to bring into discussion the agitation of party questions ; but he must necessarily mention it, as the principle of the Bill was against party decisions. Where parties were somewhat evenly divided, the result would be that the minority would by this Bill have a representation,and it was only in cases where the majority was so great that the minority had no chance of competing with them that the contrary practice could pre vail. He was not aware that there were any objections to this principle, but, however, as the main principle of the Bill he was prepared to adhere to it. The Bill also provided, that those only who were locally re sident and interested should have the right of voting for the trustees. He was not aware that there was any objection to the right of voting being confined to this class of persons ; but there were objections to that right being extended to those persons who would specially benefit by these charities, and who were more or less paupers—he meant the freemen.' The Commissioners had reported very strongly against the conduct of Corporations, and it would be 'inexpedient, therefore, to continue the charitable trusts in the old Corporations. A very important principle in this Bill was, that it would give the property to those Corporators who were charitable trustees, with charges on it for charitable purposes. He considered the property ought to rest in the Council, and that the charge should be paid by the Council to the charitable trustees. It was clear it would be their business to increase the surplus as much as possitile, in order that they might take advantage of what was above and beyond that which it would be necessary to appropriate to charitable purposes.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There was one point connected with the principle of the Bill on which he wished to touch, which was that of the Mayor being the Chairman of the charitable trusts. He wished to state the reason why he had intro duced the Mayor as Chairman, which was, that it would have been absurd to make the number who were to elect even, and therefore it had been deemed expedient to appoint some person as Chairman who would be in a situation to make an odd number. It was generally thrown upon the conductor of a Bill, or the party from whom it emanated, that they wished to serve their own interests. He repudiated his having any interest in the matter, for, as was well-known to Hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Mayor of the Borough he had the honour to represent held very different political opinions from' himself. He had struck out the second vote which the Bill formerly gave the Chairman, so that now he would merely preside and vote only in the event of the trustees being equally divided. He would be most happy to adopt any suggestion by which the Chairmanship might be better filled ; for instance, he might agree. that the trustees should have a month in which to elect their own Chairman, and then if they did not agree, that the Mayor should preside, or anything of that kind. He had introduced an amendment—an amendment which would allow the old trustees to carry on suits now in progress, and nearly concluded. These were all the amendments made in the Bill, and he hoped it would now be satisfactory. Sir ROBERT PEEL was rather surprised at the re. monstrance the Hon. Member had made against taking the discussion on the principle of the Bill at an early hour. If he had at an early period of the evening asked for leave to bring in the Bill, or had given notice of its second reading, giving ample time to consider it, then he admitted that the Hon. Member would be justified in making use of the expres sions he had done.—(Hear, hear.) But when he found that leave was given to bring in the Bill after midnight, and read a second time nearer one in the morning than twelve o'clock, and that, on both occasions, it had escaped the vigilance of the Honourable Member for Salford, he must not be surprised that it should be asked that some earlier hour than twelve o'clock should be given to discuss its principle.—(Hear, hear.) The great question for the House was, whether or not they would now make or permit to continue some temporary arrangement for the administration of charitable trusts in Corporations, or whether they would establish finally and irrevocably the principle not only of popular election, but indissoluble connection between the political body, the Corporation, and the trustees of charities.—(Hear, hear.) This Bill certainly in some respects was permanent ; and he quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that it would be preposterous to revive the old Corporations, for the purpose of vesting those trusts in them.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to disconnect the administration of charitable trusts from the political functions of the Corporations. The advantage of leaving matters as they stood would be this, that the arrangements would be necessarily provisional, such as the appointments by existing trustees of secretaries , and clerks. It would be open to Parliament. in the next session to consider the whole of the case connected with charitable trusts, and then to make a permanent arrange ment. He entreated the House to consider maturely the considerations which presented themselves in favour of this mode of proceeding. It were better to have some provisional arrangement, rather than decide that the administration of charitable trusts should be connected with popular and ne cessarily political bodies. He need hardly tell the House that patronage in the hands of local particular bo dies would be almost sure to be applied to strengthening their political interests. All he wanted was to prevent the Charities being injured by the misap plication of Charity Funds to political purposes.—(Hear.) The destruction of self-election, and the substitution of popular control, would not give a check to these abuses. A clause in the Bill gave the Council complete control over the charitable trusts, as the books were ordered to be open at all times in proper hours for the inspection of every member of the Council. • The Bill enabled the Town Council of every borough to specify who should be the trustees for carrying into operation the purposes of this Act. Whether they nominated six, twelve, or eighteen, was a matter of indiff erence , as the effect would still b e th e same. The burgesses who formed the Town Council elected the trustees, and thus the elections for political and charitable purposes became identified. Now he particu larly requested the attention of the Hon. Gentleman oppo site, the Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. Harvey), to this subject, as he bad already paid so much attention to it, and brought it under the notice of the House last year. He would suppose that the charitable trustees. were twelve in number, and that six were elected by one political party, and six by another. Each party would then be represented, but by a provision of the Bill a certain number would go out at the expiration of every year. The three or the four who had the smallest number of votes would go out, and their places would be supplied by others who, if they happened to represent at the time the popular party, would, if they were four in number, at once give to the board a preponderance of as ten to two. It was therefore quite clear that, not withstanding the efforts of the Right Hon. Gentleman to obtain impartiality, it was impossible but for a period there ould be a predominance of political feeling one side or the other. True it was that the party defeated might regain their power, but that did not matter. His fears would still be realised, and the administration of charitable funds would sink into a struggle for patronage.—(Hear, hear.) This Bill stated that the hereditaments and real estates, after having wholly satisfied the nominally specified purposes of the founder, the residue of those estates should he vested in—what ?—why, in those political bodies ; and the charity would thus become a mere annuitant, dependent upon a political Corporation. The Right Hon. Baronet here read the clause in the Bill which vested the power of appropriation in the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses. It would thus be seen that the remainder of the estate might be paid over to a borough, and- made applicable for the purposes, not of charity, but of lighting, paving, and all other local purposes ; and provided the original bequest of the specific charge, according to the nominal intent of the donor, a transfer of the whole of the remainder of the property might be made to the borough fund, and, if so, it would be impossible to levy a borough rate unless there were a deficiency of this surplus. The freemen had thus been deprived of all voice in local matters, provided they could satisfy the specific charge of the donor, and thus assert the right to appropriate. Great questions would arise upon this subject, and he would have the House weigh well the re commendation of the Commissioners who had made their report upon public charities. What had been their own proceedings in connection with this subject ? Last year a Select Committee had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the disposition of charitable funds, and the motion for its appointment had been cordially seconded by the Noble Lord and the Attorney-General opposite. The instruction of that Committee as to the nature of the duty that devolved upon them was to report their opinion on the best mode for the prompt and economieal disposition of those funds. But were they not funds for charitable pur poses ? were they borough funds for lighting and paving ? (Hear, hear)—and did the Committee recommend that the funds, when the object of the donor had been satisfied, should be transferred to a town council ?—( Hear, hear.) Those funds amounted to above a million per annum, and related to matters of national importance, which were to be admi nistered by the present body of the Commissioners. He was quite ready to admit that these funds could not be pro perly administered without calling in the aid of local authorities for their guidance, In a Bill prepared upon the subject, by one whose name he would not mention as connected with this subject but with the highest respect, and whose present retirement from political life he most sincerely regretted, and whose improved health he hoped might enable him to afford them the benefit of his advice— he alluded to the Bill prepared by Lord Brougham—( Hear, Lear)—it was provided that the Commissioners should be assisted by the Privy Council, and that all vacancies which occurred should be filled up by the Council. This was at variance with the present Bill, which gave the administra tion of these funds and the appointment of trustees to the burgesses. If it was, however, seriously meditated to establish a permanent board, would any man gravely say that it would not be more advisable to settle such a per manent measure in the course of the ensuing year, and thus give time for deliberation, rather than pass it in the present period of July ? He disclaimed altogether the de sire of seeing the funds of charities appropriated to pur poses of political patronage. Messengers from the Lords came to appoint a Confe rence with the Commons on the subjects of the amend ments to the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act (England). The Members for the Conference being ap pointed, the Conference was held, and the Attorney-Gene ral, as manager on behalf of the Commons, reported to the House that certain amendments made by the Commons the Lords had agreed to ; but that on certain amendments made by the Lords their Lordships insisted ; and that on amendments upon amendments their Lordships insisted upon some, and did not insist upon others. Lord J. RUSSELL, in considering the reasons given by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, could not throw out of sight the history of the party opposite in times passed connected with charities. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had not proposed a plan for the future administra tion of charities, but had asked for delay, without being prepared with any plan for alteration, leaving it to be sup posed that they were unwilling to adopt any improvement. In the same spirit evinced by the Right Hon. Gentleman he would appeal to the House. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman would leave the charities still to be improvidently administered. By the report of the Com missioners the funds of these charities left to be administered for great and benevolent purposes had in numerous in stances been employed for advancing political interests, and promoting the success of one political candidate in prefe rence to another. The Noble Lord then referred to the evidence of the charity Commissioners, showing that in the case of Sir I'. White's Charity, at Coventry, the funds left for the purposes of charity were applied in rewarding those who voted a particular way at an election, 41 a-head having been given to those who voted against the popular candidate. The Noble Lord then said that if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out any other plan he should have heard it with attention, but when he said, " Reject this Bill, and adopt my proposition for delay," he could not consent. The Bill, with respect to the election of the trustees,* was on the same principle as the Muni cipal Bill of last year, with respect to the auditors and as sessors, which the Noble Lord contended would have an effect far otherwise than that of giving a preponderance to one political party. But these complaints and objections he thought came ill from those who, for a period of twenty or thirty years, supported a system which allowed the poor and worthy householder—no matter what his misfortunes or respectability—to be deprived of the charitable funds of a cor poration like Coventry if he did not vote against Mr. Ellice or Mr. Bulwer. That was the system which the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had connived at—(" No," from Sir It. Peel)—and he had never beard from him any proposition to amend those abuses. Those funds had been applied to the most corrupt and unworthy purposes, and was it for them on that side of the House to impute motives to those who now brought this measure forward The Right Hon. Gentleman denied that assertion. He should be happy to learn from the Right Hon. Gentleman a statement of any of the instances in which he had taken precaution to pre ' vent such abuses, either in relation to Sir Thomas White's charity, or any other Corporation funds. Quite sure he was that if the Hon. Gentleman had ever attempted to take such a step, they had acted with the most successful caution, in concealing it from the whole body of reformers, who would have been most happy to have given them their assistance in so praiseworthy an object. As to the com plaint that the management of those funds would be by the operation of this Bill placed in the hands of political partisans, he did not concur in that objection. He saw no reason why the six or twelve or eighteen persons elected should not be elected fairly and equally from amongst the parties ; and he declared himself now, as he did last year, ready to assist in any plan to prevent the in terference of any political bias. The plan now proposed seemed to him the one best calculated to effect that object, for when they had persons thus chosen presided over by the mayor, the most responsible of officers, whose conduct would necessarily be most narrowly watched and scrutinized, he did not think it possible that any great or glaring abuse could take place.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen tleman had objected to the mode detailed in the Bill for declaring and filling up the vacancies. This, however, was a mere question o detail, and if felt to be objectionable might be met in various ways, such as that, instead of al lowing a third part every first and second year, they should all remain till the end of the third year, and go out to gether; or that, instead of those parties having the smallest number of votes going out first, the parties going out should be chosen by lot, or that one of the highest and one of the lowest should go out together. There was another point of which the Right Hon. Gentleman complained, viz., that in certain cases where charitable donations were left out of certain estates, to be distributed by corporations, the whole estate would be transferred to other hands than those in which the donors intended it to be vested. Now this clause was intended to provide against a point omitted in the Municipal Reform Bill; to provide for such a case as this, where 1,0001. a year was left to the corporation, sad dled only with fixed charitable payments, such as 21. a year for four almsmen ; and he asked the House whether it would be right that such an estate should be transferred to the charitable trustees, who had an interest in it of 81. a year only, and taken from the corporate body, whose inte rest in it amounted to 9921. a year.—(Hear, hear.) He certainly was much surprised at the argument ad vanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that, because Lord Brougham intended to bring in a Bill which contemplated a general supervision of all charitable trusts, they were, therefore, to postpone the present measure.—(Hear.) Why, the Right Hon. Baronet had himself stated that no such general supervision as that Bill contemplated was necessary, and that extra powers in the Secretary of State and so on would be quite sufficient to answer every purpose. In short, the Right Hon. Baronet threw out so much of doubt re specting it, that he (Lord J. Russell) had a right to expect, when it should be brought forward, that it would meet with the Right Hon. Baronet's opposition. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, thought it a very excellent Bill, if he could use it to defeat the present measure, whilst the other might be without difficulty either taken up by him, or be abandoned in a future session, as might best suit his then views. This Bill was directed only to a particular object ; it would not at all interfere with or impede' any general measure of the kind that might be brought forward in a future session, and he saw no reason to reject it where no better plan was proposed. The arguments against the Bill had no foundation in fact.—( Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM thought that Hon. Members on his side of the House had sortie reason to complain of the statements of the Noble Lord. It was not correct to charge those on that side of the House with being pledged, or with entertaining any desire, to uphold the abuses of existing Corporations respecting these funds. It was not denied that much mismanagement and abuse had existed, nor that the time was now come when a sufficient remedy must be provided. All that was wished was, that a well-digested and not a tardy scheme should be adopted, and that if, as a temporary arrange ment; the suggestion of the House of Lords did not meet the views of the Noble Lord, he should, until Parliament should be able to provide more sufficient general measures, place the temporary management and controul of these funds in the hands of one of his own colleagues, the Lord Chancellor, in whom the Noble Lord surely must have confidence, and in whom, from his high legal responsibility he (Sir J. Graham), though not too ready to place confi dence in the Noble Lord's colleague, was, in this respect well disposed fully to confide. There was a very strong feeling entertained by one party that a predominance would in point of fact be given by the Bill to the party opposed to them. The trustees were to be chosen by the same per sons 'as those who chose the Town Council ; the Town Council was to fix the number of the charitable trustees ; the presiding officer of the Town Council was to be the presiding officer of the charitable trustees, and in the event of an equality amongst them even, he would give the pre ponderance to the wall of his own political party ; and yet it was pretended to say that no advantages was given by the Bill to the predominant political party in the. borough. The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to quote from Lord Brougham's speeches, to show that he had been per fectly alive to the distinction taken by the Noble Lord, be tween charitable trusts generally and cases when a fixed sum only was given out of a Corporate fund to purposes of charity, and that Lord Brougham's opinion was against the course pursued by this Bill. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied at considerable length to the arguments advanced against the Bill. He denied what was assumed on the other side, that this Bill necessarily identified the charitable trustees with the town councils. The constituency might be the same, but the mode of election was totally different. He remembered that, during the discussion of the Reform Bill, the Hon. and Learned Member for Yarmouth proposed that for the counties three Members should be elected, but that each electot should only vote for two, and this the Honourable and Learned Member said would give a fair representation, because the minority would be fairly represented. Now, in the present instance, the electors only voted for half, and how much more fully was the minority represented, inas much as they were sure to return as large a number as the majority. What was the alteration proposed? To leave it to the present parties for one year longer. Why, it was admitted on all hands that they were the only parties who had been guilty of great abuses. " Leave it to the Lord Chancellor, then," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " he has power to appoint those trustees." Yes, so he had, but just in the same way as he had power to appoint new trustees of the Right Hon. Baronet's marriage settlement on tedious and expensive proceedings being first taken, proceedings which, in one of these small cases, would eat up the whole estate—( Hear, hear, hear)—and then when they were brought, the question would be referred to the Master, who would receive proposals from the different parties in the town, and, if he did his duty, would i he did not hesitate to say, apportion the trustees equally between ; thus, after a long and expensive process coming to precisely the same result as that provided for in the Bill. As to the casting vote given to the mayor, it was not intended that he should have two votes, but merely that, as there must be an odd number and a presiding officer, he should preside over the meetings of the charitable trustees, as the Speaker presided over that House, and should only vote when the trustees were equally divided. He denied most distinctly that the Bth clause alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet would take away one farthing from the poor for the benefit of the rich. Mr. WILLIAMS should cordially support the Bill. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that' the Bill before the House was the inevitable result of the Municipal Corpora tion Reform Act. It purported to transfer charters from the Corporations to the councils ; and a more desirable object could scarcely be contemplated. Any change in that respect would be for the better. The only question to be decided, was whether the plan proposed by the Bill under consideration was the hest which could be devised ? He was sorry to say he believed it was not. The Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General had spoken severely of the Court in which be practised, the Court of Chancery. He (Mr. D. W. Harvey) was delighted to witness the well-merited chastisement bestowed on it by him, and to perceive the able exposure of its absurdities Which he made ; but he could not help expresSing his wonder that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, with all his power and all his experi ence, had allowed the subject to slumber for the two past Sea:ions. With regard to the question before the House, he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) would admit that there was some difficulty in the wav of transferring charitable property to new hands. By the Bill before the House the trustees were to be equally drawn from two parties, and the mayor Was to be the judge between them. It was, therefore, presumed that the mayor was to be an impartial person. Now it was a well known fact that of all men in a city or borough the mayor was generally, indeed always, the most of a party man, and the least impartial in party matters.(Cries of " Hear, hear," and great laughter.) That was a very undesirable mode of administering charity funds it should be admitted ; but still, as no better was suggested, he would be satisfied with it, provided there was some other authority to supervise the actions of the trustees. He trusted that his Majesty's Government would bring forward in the course of the next session a plan by which all charities, corporate and others, should be placed under the controul and regulation of one general board. With respect to the Bth clause, alluded to, he felt bound to say that it did not effect the purposes for which it was stated to be introduced. There were many charities in the kingdom where the value of the estates bequeathed having increased by time, the relief extended was not com mensurately increased. In other words, where the letter and not the spirit of the bequest was adhered to. The Coventry charity of Sir Thomas IVhite, and Sir J. Mor- land's College charity for decayed Turkey merchants, were cases in point. But, perhaps, one of the strongest he . • could adduce was that of a case relating to the town of Colchester which had been long in Chancery. Some four hundred years since, a small estate was left, which pro duced at that period the sum of 15s. per week. Of that sum eighteen-pence per week was paid to each of five poor persons, on condition that they received no other charity. At that time eighteen-pence might have been sufficient to provide comfortably for a poor person ; at present it was not. The residue was to be given to the par> son to take care of their souls. In the lapse of time the estate had increased, and it was now worth 4001. a year. How was it disposed of? Was the number of poor in creased at the original amount of relief, or was the original number retained, and the increased sum distributed among them? No ; five poor persons got eighteenpence a week still, and the residue was pocketed by the parson, for tak ing care of their souls. The Court of Chancery was ap pealed to, but it decided according to the letter, and not the spirit of the donor's bequest. The clause (the Bth) did not remedy the evil. It took away even the chance of coming before the Court of Chancery. He therefore sug. gested that terms to the effect of giving Corporations no greater right in charters administered by them should be incorporated in it. He was not by any means enamoured of the scheme of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, for keeping the administration at' charitable trusts in the hands for Corporations for another year. He did not be. lieve that Tories would abuse them more than Whigs, but he objected to either party having the opportunity of doing so. Mr. PEMBERTON coincided with the opinion, that under the old system of Corporate management charities were not as well administered as they might be, in conse quence of being under the same Administration as the Cor porate and political funds. That was the cause of the evil. The simple remedy was to take the charitable property from the political, and place the administration of it in other hands. Did the Bill before the House do that ? Quite the contrary. It only changed the name, and not the nature, of the administration. The Bill was defective-, in so far as it was founded on the Municipal Corporations Act. The Bill proceeded on no just analogy, and it con tained no principle of true Reform. It was a system preg nant with evil, and one by which it was impossible the cha rities could be administered justly or honestly. Mr. L. CHARLTON said that the Bill would subject charities to enormous expenses in the Court of Chancery. On that ground, he trusted the House would pause before it subjected them to such an evil. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the present state of the charitable trusts was most deplorable, and the Bill before them was intended to remedy the evil, as far as possible. If the Bill were. thrown out all the argu ments now used against the old system would then be applicable with twofold power, and it strongly manifested that there was a lurking desire to perpetuate these trusts on the part of those who had abused them. The other House had stated its intention, if this Bill did not pass, to let the present trustees exercise their power for another year ; but the passing of this Bill would disappoint them. The Bill proposed that a body distinct from the Corporation should administer these funds, elected for a limited time, subject to popular controul, and to account to the public when called on. The evils of the present system arose from a want of popular controul. TO? rsmedi- this they proposed that all the ratepayers of the borough should have the power of voting for the trustees, but for only one half, to render party influence the less liable to interfere in the result. It was true they were not appointed for life, but if they did their duty they would be re-elected. It was said that the Mayor would rule the Council ; but the Mayor would have no voice therein, except in cases of an equality of votes. The Mayor might, it was true, be a party-man. The Speaker of the House of Commons was a party-man ; but that did not prevent him from doing his duty impartially in the office to which he was elected. Mr. SCARLETT disclaimed any intention to perpetuate misrule in his opposition to this Bill, but if the question went to a division he should vote against it. Colonel SIBTHORP said that the Hon. Gentleman opposite did not expect any division, but he could not tell him, that he (Colonel Sihthorp) bad come down to give his vote for its postponement to that day three months, and he had heard nothing that could induce him to alter his opinion. He therefore begged leave to move to that effect. Mr. YOUNG said that the object they had in view was to remove the charitable trusts from all political in fluence, but on the best view he could give of the provi sions of the Bill, he thought it could not have the effect, and therefore he could not support it in its present shape. If the House went to a division, he must vote against it. - Mr. V. SMITH replied. The Opposition had only replied to the advocates of this Bill by cavils, and without adducing a single fact or argument against it.—(" Question" —" Divide.") He would propose that the trustees should appoint their own chairman, or if the failed to do - so within a month, then that the council should do so. Mr. YOUNG explained. The House then divided-- For the original motion For the amendment ... Majority 45 ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL. On our re-admission to the Gallery we found Lord J. RUSSELL moving the third reading of the Established Church Bill. Mr. HUME objected to this Bill being proceeded with, until the full report of the Church Commissioners should be made. Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his determination to proceed with the Bill, so as to have it passed in the present session. Mr. HUME persisted in his objection, as the Bill did not afford any relief to the Dissenters from Church cess ; and he therefore moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. .LENNA RD objected to the Bill, on the ground that it went to continue the system of translation for Bishops, and an increasing scale of income. Sir R. INGLIS said it was clear the 811 l would not satisfy a great body of those opposite. He opposed_ the Bill because it would give them the vantage ground, by 'conceding the principle that Church property is public property. In this he could never concur. He Would not undervalue the destitution of the poorer Clergy, but it was not fair to commit injustice on one party to relieve another. If distress was to be relieved, it should be by other means. The Church was not endowed by the State, and the State had no right to interfere with the distribution of its pro perty. On these grounds, though not coming to the same conclusion as the Hon. Member for Middlesex, he should concur in the amendment. Mr. F. BUXTON need not say that the indefeasible ,right insisted on by the Hon. Baronet would put an end to all improvement. That was a Roman Catholic doctrine; and Protestant practice was opposed to it. No reform would be satisfactory which did not remedy glaring defects ; and in the present case the defects pointed out could not be denied, because those who called attention to them could not be supposed to be actuated by any other than a friendly spirit. It was shown that there was a large proportion of the clergy who had excessive duties with little incomes, and it was shown that there were large portions of the popula tion unprovided either with churches or pastoral superin tendence. Instead of going too far the Bill did not go far enough, for if the incomes of the Bishops were reduced, the difference would raise to something like a proper amount the incomes of the working clergy. Mr. C. BULLER would beg to call the attention of the Hou:e and the country to the extraordinary and not very creditable position in which his Majesty's Ministers had placed themselves, a position for which there was to be no parallel found in the history of the country. They had by their course of blundering proceedings alienated from them their best friends, and hung for support on their enemies. They were evidently in too great haste to push forward their crude measures to a close, Now, he would assert publicly, that in this Bill of theirs there was not one substantial or useful enactment.—( Hear, hear.) It was a Bill compiled from the blue book which was placed on the tables of the Members ; yet, strange to say, this very blue book was not furnished to the Members till after the Bill was read a second time.—(A laugh.) When the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) asked the House to point out one single instance in which the State bad given one farthing to the Church, he would beg to mention to him the bishoprics created in the time of Henry VIII., when revenues were alienated, under the sanction of Government and the Par liament, from the Catholic Church to the newly-created Church. But, to revert to the Ministers. By what species of insanity, he would ask, was it that they deviated from their principles, alienated themselves from their friends, and espoused the principles and acted on the re commendations of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), after they leagued with the Liberal party in that House, and drove him from office, from power, and from what was an important consideration, the emoluments of office ? ( 1 ' Oh, oh !" " No, no.") He begged pardon—he meant no offence—he did not think that the emoluments of office were an object to him. He really meant no offence. But he would say, that though he lost the emoluments of office he still retained its substantial power by having all his mea sures carried. There could not be a more effective impeder of Reform than the Right Hon. Baronet. By allowing Go vernment, and, indeed, urging them on to pass sham mea sures of Reform, he was giving Reform a vital blow. The present Bill was not consistent with the principles of either party. The other side, through one of their organs, ,(Sir R. Inglis) said, " We must not touch the property of the Church." So say we, except for something good ; but this was not given by the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet truly said that those measures could not conciliate political opponents t if so, then those measures for abolishing plu ralities, translations, and the equalisation of livings would only legalise the vices of all these. As to the Dissenters, they would act pitifully if they accepted the boon held out to them. They should require that the revenues of the Deans and Chapters be not distributed in the Church, but distributed to relieve them from onerous taxes. The maxims of Government were only calculated to alienate their friends. He was sure they would not take his words in a very friendly spirit. But he should tell them not only his own opinions, but those of many of their best supporters, They might have worse friends than him. They opposed his principles, and those of their best friends, and leant for support on the other side. This was a line of policy that would not conciliate their political opponents, while it would disgust the country against them. It was this vacillating policy that turned them out of office in 1834 ; and would detach from them the support of the people now. He never spoke so strongly before ; but it was necessary to recal Ministers to a sense of heir own principles and pledges to the people ; and in place of proposing bad and inoperative laws let them propose sound effective measures, and they would rally round- them the co-operation and sympathies of the country. Lord .I. RUSSELL could not be silent after the re marks of the last speaker. He pleaded guilty to the charge that he did not propose the Bill from party views. lie al ways thought it his duty, Whether in or out of office, to correct the abuses of the Church. if he bad proposed the lowest emolument for the Bishops he would have been filet by the taunt that nothing but extreme Reform would please He, therefore, took a middle course, without regard to the feelings, of party. Now, when concession was made on the other side, it would be detrimental to the public in terest not to meet it, rather than fesiOt for party purposes ; especially as the proposed plans had the concurtetiee'ef the Bishops, and theft was an opportunity of bringing those questions to an amicable adjustment. If he proposed to give the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, 8,0001. a-year, and the Bishop of London 4,500/. a-year, he might have saved some 25,000/. a-year; but then that proposition would have met with effective opposition. It was better to reform temperately and satisfactorily, and meet concession in the same friendly spirit.—(Hear, hear.) It was unfair to charge Government with crea ting evils which they designed to remedy. So far from legalising translations from very small to very emolu mentary bishoprics, they had actually taken treasures to equalise the revenues of the sees. He would further say that he did not think it right to bestow, for the benefit of the Dissenters, the surplus revenues of the Church, when there were small livingsito be enlarged. At present pluralities could not be dispensed with on account of the smallness of the emoluments of some livings. Though he Jegretted the opposition of some of his Hon. Friends, v he would maintain the principles of the Bill, which he contended were based on a solid foundation. It was the duty of Parliament to defend the Church, and he was sure the present measure tended to secure the interests of the Establishment and pre vent long contention. He would, therefore, persevere in pressing the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL could assure the Hon. Member (Mr. Buller) that the Bill was no triumph to him ; that he did not look upon it as any concession to his views or his party. Neither was there any reanceuvre on his part to have such a Bill introduced. If the Commission was purely his Commission there might be grounds for attack, but it was not. When he filled the highest office of the Governwnt he advised the friends of the Church to appoint such a Commission, as he thought that if thi . dignitaries and other friends of the Estahljshment gave their sanction to a plan of adjustment it would be more likely to be successful than if proposed by any other party. When he retired he did notrecOmmend a continuation ot"the Commission. The present Government continued it front their own judgment. For his part he disclaimed all politi cal motives in suggesting the Commission at first, or act ing on its recommendation now, and he surely never had any communication with the Noble Lord about it. What could be stronger evidence of the disinterestedness of Go vernment in appointing the Commission than that they re signed to it patronage to a large amount, which they could use to their own useful purposes ? Not only did the Go vernment act thus disinterestedly, but the Bishops resigned the patronage that belonged to them, and which they could, and were justified if they did, use for the benefit of the meritorious portion of their own families. Nothing was easier than to say that a Bishop should not have more than a certain sum annually ; but Parliament would not, he was sure, confine the dignitaries of the Church to a paltry pittance. From the claims there were on the hospitality and charity of the Bishops, and from the positive necessity there was that they should uphold the decorous dignity of their high sta tion, Parliament would not, and ought not, dole out to them their emoluments with a niggard hand. Now, suppose they cut down the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 10,0001. per annum, they would still find persons ready to cavil with even that income, and to en large upon the advantages of reducing it to .5,000/. a year. The only way in which to consider incomes was with respect to the station of the individual". Considering the extent of patronage that had been given up, and believing the Bill to contain the principle of a useful reform of the Church, he' certainly should give it his pupport.. He thought that the course which the Noble Lord had taken was the right course, and he trusted that the compliment which he had paid him, would not have the effect of prejudicing the process of the measure. Lord EBRINGTON would support the third reading of the Bill, because he concurred in its general principles and objects, though there were some of the details which did not meet his approbation. He would have been better pleased if they had reduced the larger salaries, and, made a provision to secure the residence of the Bishops in their dioceses when they were not engaged in other duties. He would also have been better pleased, if the territorial possessions of the Bishops were placed in the manage ment of a Board of Commissioners, and a regular and fixed income paid to the Bishops in lieu thereof. He considered it would be more advantageous to the Church as it would enable the Bishops to discharge their episcopal duties without the anxiety attendant upon the ma nagement of large landed estates. He hoped that this suggestion would be considered worthy the attention of the friends of the Church in the other House of Parliament. With respect so another Bill before Parliament, namely, that which took away the patronage of the Deans and Chapters, and transferred it to the Bishops, he trusted that at this period of the session his Noble Friend would not press that measure, as they would not have time to give it sufficient consideration. He had moved for a return on • the subject. , He considered the measure before the House would be found beneficial.—(Hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. DUNCOMBE rose - together. The former Hon. Gentleman moved the ad journment of the debate. The SPEAKER having put the question, Mr. GOULBU RN stated that the Hon. Member for Finsbury having been named by the Speaker, and being in possession of the House, and the Hon. Member for Salford having, notwithstanding, made a motien, he did not think, under such circumstances, a motion so made was regular. The SPEAKER made no observation in reply, and Mr. DUNCOMBE proceeded to address the House, amid cries of " Adjourn" and " Go on," and considerable noise. He expressed his disappointment and disgust at the Bill before the House as a measure of Church reform, and in that feelinr , he was joined by every real Reformer, both in and out of that House. He acquitted the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth of all responsibility with respect to this Bill. His Majesty's Ministers were alone responsible for it. They might talk of the Irish Tithe Bill, and its unhappy appropriation clause—(A laugh)—but the mea snre before them was the touchstone by which the people of England would decide whether or not his Majesty's Mi nisters would deserve the confidence of the country. The Hon. Member condemned the constitution of the Church Commission, which was composed of five Bishops, five Cabinet Ministers, and five gentlemen, who, however ines timable in private life, were known to be inveterate Tories. He adverted to the petitions from the Deans and Chap ters presented by the Member for Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton). He thought the petitioners were right in their objections to a central Board. He did not compluin of the spoliation of patronage of the Deans and Chapters, but he objected to the transfer of that patronage to the Bishops. In conclusion, the Hon. Member expressed his strong con demnation of the Bill as a measure of Church reform. Mr. HAWES considered that the Hon. Member for Salford's motion of adjournment was the question before the House. If no Member was at liberty to move the question of adjournment until he was seen by the Speaker, the independence of the House, and every Member in it, would be at the disposal of the Speaker. • The SPEAKER said that he had put the question. Lord F. EGERTON—As allusion had been made to to the petitions presented by him, he hoped that those peti tions would receive the attention to which the profession, and character, -and station of the petitioners entitled them. It was his intention, whenever that Bill was before the House, to move amendments embodying the spirit of the prayer of those petitions ; and he hoped those amendments would receive favourable consideration. Mr. BLACKSTONE asked the Noble Lord opposite whether the two new Bishops of Manchester and Ripon would be entitled to seats in the House of Lords ? Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the affirmative. They would be entitled to the same rights and privileges as were possessed by the other Bishops. Mr. A. TREVOR rose to address the House, but the cres of " Adjourn" and " Divide" were so loud, that the Hon. Member was unable to proceed. He expressed his concurrence in the opinions that had been expressed by his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and stated his intention to vote against the Bill. After in effectually attempting to be heard, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by again moving the question of adjournment. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but on our return it was understood that no division took place, the de bate being adjourned to Friday next. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned, at a Quarter to Two o'Clock. HO USE OF LORDS, JULY 19. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. GREENWICH PIER. Lord KENYON moved the second reading of the Greenwich Pier Bill.—Agreed to. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the Clergy and Magistrates of Southampton, complaining of the number of beer-shops. The Earl of CALEDON presented a petition against the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Soutb Metropolitan Cemetery Bill, which was read a first time. Lord L YNDHURST presented a petition from the Chief Clerk of the Irish Court of Chancery, praying for com pensation under the Chancery Reform Bill. The petition having been read at length by the Clerk, Lord PLUNKETT entered into a long statement, for the purpose of showing that the petitioner had obtained an ample compensation, and that he wanted to obtain a situation as Assistant-Registrar, to which he was Pot entitled. He conceived that he was bound to abide by the provisions of the Act upon this subject, which he (Lord Plunkett) had had the honour to introduce- There would be a saving of nearly 3,0001. per annum to the public by the new arrangements in that department. I\ll% BEItNAL and others from the Commons, brought up a copy of the Report of the Committee on Leith Harbour ; also the Paper Duties Bill, the Copyright (Ireland) Bill, the Light Houses Bill, and the Sale of Bread Bill, with an amendment. DUNDEE WATER-WORKS. Lord BANDON, as Chairman of the Committee on the Dundee Water-works Bill, reported to the House that the preamble of the Bill had not been proved. The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Amendments Bill, and the Turnpike Acts (Ireland) Bill, went through Committee. The Bills on their Lordships' table were advanced a stage' Lord WYNFO RD presented a petition, complaining of the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Bill. CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS. On the motion of Lord ROSSLYN, the Report of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagree' ing with some of the amendments made by the Coo' mons to the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill «'e s read, and a message was sent requesting a conference With the Commons thereon. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Pa' rochial Assessment Regulation Bill went into Committee. On the first clause being read, Lords Ellenboroug h ' Kenyon, and some other Noble Lords, objected to it. The Duke of RICHMOND defended the clause. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Coe' mittee divided, when the numbers were— For the clause Against it 2B Majority in favour of the clause —3 On clause 3 being proposed, The Du :e of RICHMOND said the effect of the cla" se would amount in many cases to a denial of justice. O i l knew that a power of appeal was given, and that a no ;~ :~ , THE SUN, LONtION, WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1686. ~~ t~ . ..J